from the states-rights!-Or-not! dept

Despite a last-ditch effort by the EFF and other consumer and privacy groups, the GOP voted back in March to kill consumer broadband privacy protections. As we noted several times, the protections weren't particularly onerous -- simply requiring that ISPs are transparent about what data they're collecting, who they're selling it to, and that they provide working opt-out tools. But because many of these large ISPs are busy pushing into the media sector (AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner being just one example), large ISPs lobbied fiercely to eliminate anything that could dent these future potential revenues.

Shortly thereafter, at least eight states and a handful of cities rushed in to fill the void. The city of Seattle, for example, passed a new requirement that ISPs receive opt-in permission (the dirtiest phrase imaginable to the marketing industry) before collecting and selling subscriber data. Meanwhile in Maine, a new privacy proposal by State Senator Shenna Bellows is seeing support from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Bellows cited Congress' decision to overturn the protections as a motivation for the move:

"With its reckless vote, Congress put Mainers’ privacy up for sale,” Bellows said. “Most people are rightfully appalled by the idea that their Internet service provider could be watching their every move online and selling their information to the highest bidder. We owe it to our constituents to protect their privacy."

This move by the states to do the job Congress wasn't willing to do has apparently riled the current FCC majority. Speaking at an event at the American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC), FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said he would be exploring taking some kind of action against states that move to pass new broadband privacy protections. O'Rielly's comments have previously been backed by current FCC boss Ajit Pai, who has also hinted at taking action against the states:

"It is both impractical and very harmful for each state to enact differing and conflicting privacy burdens on broadband providers, many of which serve multiple states, if not the entire country,” said Pai. “If necessary, the FCC should be willing to issue the requisite decision to clarify the jurisdictional aspects of this issue."

And to be clear, many of these state efforts may cause problems. ISPs have to adapt their business to multiple, discordant protections. In same states, you're likely to see overreach, as politicians try to craft legislation based on what's all-too-often a mud-puddle deep understanding of technology. And the patchwork rules also create confusion for consumers, who suddenly find their privacy is (or isn't) protected depending entirely on whether they're over the state line -- or just how loyal their state representatives are to the charms of large ISP and marketing industry lobbyists.

The problem with this complaint, of course, is we wouldn't be in this situation if Congress and the FCC majority hadn't mindlessly rushed to kill the FCC's basic privacy protections in the first place. It was their choice to ignore the will of the public and push policy solely because AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter thought it would be nice. The resulting fractured policy landscape is their responsibility.

There's also the fact that both Pai and O'Rielly have taken longstanding issue with the FCC's attempt to thwart ISP-written, state protectionist laws that hamstring local competition. Those laws, O'Rielly and Pai have long declared, are sacred and a matter of states' rights. Odd that when the states defend the anti-competitive fiefdoms enjoyed by giant ISPs, it's a matter of "states' rights," but when those same states move to buck the interests of those same providers and protect consumer privacy, it's suddenly a capital offense.

During his speech, O'Rielly repeatedly vilified support for privacy and net neutrality as the "whims of the misinformed" and "socialism":

"The members of ALEC can serve an important role as the new Commission seeks to restore free market principles to broadband offerings. Many of you know all too well of the pressure on us to buckle and acquiesce to the whims of the misinformed screaming for Net Neutrality. You likely face it at your respective statehouses as you debate the various matters before you. The ‘progressive agenda’ being pushed in so many settings is really an effort to use government as a means to redistribute hard earned assets from one group of people to favored interests. Do not let your voices go unheard as Net Neutrality advocates slowly, but surely, seek to drag the U.S. economy toward socialism."

As we've long noted, ISPs (and the politicians paid to love them) have had immense success portraying both privacy rights and net neutrality as partisan issues, therefore encouraging public bickering and stalling any real progress on policy. In reality, however, both concepts have broad, bipartisan support (only baseball and getting screwed repeatedly by Comcast tend to magically bridge this country's deep, partisan divide). Ultimately, I think we'll find that mindlessly trampling consumer broadband rights isn't quite the "red meat for the base" both Pai and O'Rielly believe it is in their own heads.

Other than the money, I really have to wonder why the FCC would be so adamant about gutting privacy protections, Net Neutrality principles, and basic consumer-friendly oversight. If there is a good reason for doing those things that does not involve large sums of money, I sure as shit cannot figure it out.

Re:

Other than the money, I really have to wonder why the FCC would be so adamant about gutting privacy protections, Net Neutrality principles, and basic consumer-friendly oversight. If there is a good reason for doing those things that does not involve large sums of money, I sure as shit cannot figure it out.

It's a fundamental principles thing. To Pai and O'Rielly, they simply don't think the FCC should be regulating these issues at all. At best, they think of the FCC as a spectrum management agency. At worst, they think the entire agency should be shut down.

So when you view their actions through that lens it makes sense in a manner that is not corrupt. They simply believe the simplistic concept that "regulation bad" (as one of our vocal commenters here also believes), and thus they look to undermine restrictions on telcos at all opportunities, not realizing, of course, that that is a form of regulation in its own right that does much greater harm to innovation and consumers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

the FCC caused this problem, a full shut down along with all of their rules protecting business is better than them staying alive where the rules now only protect the business.

Um. Sort of. But not in the way that you think. Much of the success of the early internet was BECAUSE of rules not unlike today's rules (in fact, even stronger) under Title II. The "issue" came when we moved off Title II, which was an FCC decision.

But now we're back, and your argument is "just do away with them all" which -- given the existing market -- is not just nonsensical, it's suicidal.

TD is becoming a poster child for "Those who run face first into their destinies in vain attempts to avoid it!"

I apologize that we actually understand the law and technology and the nuances, and you want to pretend the world is simplistic and two-dimensional. One day, I hope you will learn that things are not so simple.

The moment you turn to a politician to save your ass, is the moment you give it away!

Yes. Damn those politicians who created the Constitution. We should just do away with it all.

Go ahead, keep ignoring history, you will only repeat it!

Uh huh. Do you expect people to take you seriously?

The only thing history teaches is that people are terrible at learning from it!

No offense, but your statements suggest that you are incredibly ignorant of history.

Re: Re:

To Pai and O'Rielly, they simply don't think the FCC should be regulating these issues at all.

...

They simply believe the simplistic concept that "regulation bad" (as one of our vocal commenters here also believes), and thus they look to undermine restrictions on telcos at all opportunities,

Those lines strike me as rather conflicting. If they really didn't think that it was the FCC's job to be regulating telecos, they wouldn't then be going out of their way attempting to sabotage the efforts by others to do the same, they'd simply drop any FCC regulations and wash their hands of it all.

For their actions to match that idea they'd have to believe that it's not the job of anyone to regulate the teleco companies, them or states, and the problem with that is that as pointed out they seem to have absolutely no problem with states passing laws that favor teleco companies, they only have a problem when a state tries to pass something that could hurt teleco profits.

For people that 'only' think the FCC shouldn't have any sort of hand in keeping teleco companies in check their actions don't seem to match. If they are operating under the idea that it's their job to help the teleco companies in any way they can then their actions make perfect sense.

Re: Re:

I don't buy it. It takes a whole lot of wilful blindness not to see 1- the overwhelming support towards the rules and 2- that the justice system AND the legislative let the FCC move ahead with Title II back when Wheeler decided to move.

I hope the dismantling fails hard wherever it needs to go through. And I hope Pai and his misguided ideology (yeah right) go away as soon as possible. If there's any Deity out there Trump will leave sooner as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

no, I don't have that bias problem.

I am okay with people disagreeing with me, I just called him an idiot for implying that I was pro-Trump just because I made the statement that Trump is hardly the only corrupt bastard we have to deal with in government.

Did not vote for Trump, but I do clearly see the hypocrisy of those that have lost their marbles over the guy.

So again, it is not the difference of opinion that makes him an idiot, just the level of ignorance of the facts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Like I said, it's too bad people pay attention."

Quite the contrary, people are NOT paying attention. They have been busy focused on a lot of superficial stuff. If they were paying attention... well let's just say Trump might be poor by now instead of sitting in an oval office.

"Life sucks for us Trumpos right now."

One thing I have learned from the Hillary sycophants, is that sycophants are called sycophants for a reason. The Trump sycophants are no different.

Your problem is that you have trouble with comprehension... making you an idiot. Your lame attempts at sarcasm are at least well understood, but you should peddle those on Trump supporters for better effect.

Re: Re:

It Trump would just shut his fucking pie hole a lot of snowflakes would begin to forget the turd.

The appointments, policies, and legislation pushed by the Trump administration will not “disappear” if Ol’ 45 stops speaking. They are real, tangible, and likely to damage this country for decades.

They are also not the domain of Trump alone. He did not drop the American Health Care Act on the GOP; the GOP came up with that and asked Trump to stamp it with his approval. Every policy position held by Trump has either been approved or endorsed by the GOP at large—everything from “the wall” to “less taxes for the rich” is part and parcel of that political party.

When laws and policies affect a wide swath of people whom politicians are supposed to serve, people do not “forget” about it. They look at those who enacted those laws and pushed those policies to either praise or berate them. As it so happens, a lot of policies and potential laws being pushed by the Trump administration will affect more people than I think even they could imagine—and not in a positive way. People should give him and the GOP hell for that. People should be telling their leaders, regardless of party, that a certain law or policy could have grave consequences for the average American citizen.

Trump is a symptom, yes; the larger disease is the political party that enabled him. The GOP does not want to look inward, as it will find nothing but spite for the broader American populace that Republicans are supposed to govern. How else can you explain a political party that grinds the processes of government to a halt just so they can say “the government doesn’t work”? And why should the American public “forget” that sort of thing?

Re: Re: Re:

"The appointments, policies, and legislation pushed by the Trump administration will not “disappear” if Ol’ 45 stops speaking. They are real, tangible, and likely to damage this country for decades."

And people will forget about it, as history shows. They have forgotten many times already!

"Trump is a symptom, yes; the larger disease is the political party that enabled him. The GOP does not want to look inward, as it will find nothing but spite for the broader American populace that Republicans are supposed to govern."

I agree, but you forgot to include the democrats along with that, leading to a larger problem called the Elecorate. A group of several million people that accept the corruption in their parties while lambasting the corruption in the opponents party.

Hypocrisy is a nasty affair, sort your own corruption before you can see clearly enough to sort another's!

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You say this incredibly obvious stuff - people are dumb! politicians are bad! - as if we all don't know, and it makes you look really oblivious and negates all of your points. You're screaming about the 101 level shit as if it matters. We're trying to have a conversation about the real world, not Politics for Dummies.

Re: Re:

I can only imagine that the line of presidential succession will be at play in such a situation. There is no precedent for a special presidential election, and I cannot believe that the federal government is prepared for such a thing.

Re:

Re: Re:

"progressive agenda"

I still do not know what they mean by this phrase ... it seems to morph into whatever suits their purpose, I suppose the same could be said about the "regressive agenda" being pushed by the opposition but this dichotomy seems unbalanced at the moment.

Re: Re: FCC commissioner is trying to Protect consumers

People have valuable organs.

About 2/3 of the way through the ISP service agreement you signed, on page 223, as you can clearly see, you agreed to let the ISP sneak in the middle of the night and harvest your and your family's vital organs -- assuming your mobile phone company hasn't gotten them first.

Re: Re: Re:

The problem is that the people in FCC are voting at straight partisan lines on these issues. They are also appointed politically. Generally 3 from the presidents party and 2 from the other. Right now Trump hasn't bothered to fill it and only 2 republicants and 1 democrat are appointed.

Pai and O'Reilley are younger guys, while Clyborn is a slightly more experienced woman. In any terms I don't see the generation gap as the controlling factor there.

Where you may have a point is outside FCC, but that is not what is under fire here. The republicans favour economic contributions over a good political agenda on this issue and damn if they aren't running the things through with truely mindboggling comments completely opposing any logic, except maybe Trumpism.

Pai and O'Rielly you are both scum bags. Nice how this article points out how you support state laws that benefit corporations but berate them when state laws protect the public. Go F yourselves you POS lobbyists (not sure if O'Rielly is, but I'm sure that will be his next gig).

Curious

I'm curious what ISP Pai and O'Rielly use. I bet they don't have usage caps. They probably get "employee pricing" since they're apparently already on the payroll of the large ISPs. I really would love to know who they use, what speeds they get, and if they get a cap or not. I'd be willing to bet they don't use the Internet like most Americans do today.

Socialism is always bad!

Do not let your voices go unheard as Net Neutrality advocates slowly, but surely, seek to drag the U.S. economy toward socialism.

Yes O'Rielly, socialism is always bad.

Except for things like Social Security, Medicare, anti-monopoly laws, the public education system guaranteeing free education to all kids, the fire departments, the police departments, the justice system, etc.

Them and all those other things that are paid for tax payer expense are just fine despite being a socialist redistribution of wealth in some way!

But the very idea of net neutrality is horrible, because socialism is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Re: Socialism is always bad!

Also the Interstate Highway System - a wonder of the modern world - and other public roads and streets. The US Postal System. The space program, until just recently.

And of course the military. (Excluding private militias, but if they exist they're irrelevant in modern times. America's massive military budget is as large as most of the rest of the world's military budgets combined. Even setting aside the manpower and weapons, "socialism" refers to the government controlling that much of the economy through defense contracts.

Re: Re:

Some people do not understand the dynamics of politics and the human condition - I certainly do not. However, I do know that if you remove the hypothetical "two groups" others will immediately fill the void like a gas expanding to occupy the entire volume. And then you are right back where you started - congratulations.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America where a political appointee at the federal level can usurp the will of the people at the state level by (supposedly) thwarting their representatives ability to act.

State assembly houses have the power to pass legislation that benefits their constituents but most choose the more lucrative path of least resistance by pretending their hands have been tied by federal fiat.

How the mighty have fallen...

The FCC under Pai has become an absolute joke. Unless a piano happens to fall on his and Trump's heads in some sort of freak accident, this crap is just going to keep happening. For whatever it's worth, there's a group of people trying to raise money to sue the FCC as sort of an alternate approach: http://www.irregulators.org